1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff entered Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as “ASEAN”) and applied for refugee status recognition to the Defendant on April 28, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”).

B. On April 12, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status on the ground that, with respect to the Plaintiff, Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”), the Defendant cannot recognize “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be injured” as a requirement of refugee.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 24, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on November 29, 2018.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff resided in ASEANn Republic of Korea, and the government of ASEAN constructed an airport on the land of village residents who reside in the Plaintiff.

However, since land compensation negotiations for airport construction are not well conducted, village residents including the plaintiff and the plaintiff have conducted a demonstration at the airport construction site, and the airport facilities were destroyed in the course of the demonstration.

Accordingly, the government of ASEAN arrested and detained the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '

Therefore, the defendant's disposition against which the plaintiff's application for refugee status was not accepted should be revoked as it is unlawful even though it is likely that the plaintiff's return to Austria might pose a threat to the physical freedom of the government of the state.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 and Article 1 of the Refugee Convention.